Comments on: The Battle for Copyright http://www.jordanlapp.com/the-battle-for-copyright Resources for the genre writer Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:34:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Ty http://www.jordanlapp.com/the-battle-for-copyright/comment-page-1#comment-151 Ty Wed, 23 May 2007 22:23:05 +0000 http://jordanlapp.com/blog/the-battle-for-copyright/#comment-151 I'm just impressed you were listening to RATM. Add a Waylon Jennings tune to the mix and I'll be extremely impressed. And yes, you can like both Rage and Waylon. It's all rebel outlaw music. I’m just impressed you were listening to RATM. Add a Waylon Jennings tune to the mix and I’ll be extremely impressed.

And yes, you can like both Rage and Waylon. It’s all rebel outlaw music.

]]> By: Andrew LeBlanc http://www.jordanlapp.com/the-battle-for-copyright/comment-page-1#comment-150 Andrew LeBlanc Wed, 23 May 2007 22:00:29 +0000 http://jordanlapp.com/blog/the-battle-for-copyright/#comment-150 At the end, I should have said, "an unlimited length of time". At the end, I should have said, “an unlimited length of time”.

]]> By: Andrew LeBlanc http://www.jordanlapp.com/the-battle-for-copyright/comment-page-1#comment-149 Andrew LeBlanc Wed, 23 May 2007 21:59:40 +0000 http://jordanlapp.com/blog/the-battle-for-copyright/#comment-149 Every time someone compares a copyright to a house, I feel like someone is kicking at the inside of my brain. A writer should be embarrassed to use such a clumsy analogy. Who builds a house for soul purpose of sharing it with other people, a house that has no value unless it is used by people other than the builder. A house that the builder sells over and over again, but never loses its value. A house that does not decay with age, never needs to be rebuilt or repaired. A house that if built well enough, ends becoming entwined with entire generations, entire cultures. A house which plants the seeds of other houses... perhaps the original builder owns those houses too, or at least, some portion of them. In other words: NOT A HOUSE AT ALL. The government isn't *taking* away anyone's book, they're taking away a special protection for something that cannot be easily defined materially. While personal property ownership and rights could certainly exist in absence of a large-scale government, Copyright could not. Copyright can only exist *because* of the government. If the government minded its own business entirely as this delusional old boob seems to want, he'd never have had a damned copyright in the first place. When I buy a book, the only thing that prevents me from owning the words as well as the paper is law. The right to sell words, and still own them is a legal construct... worthwhile and beneficial to writers, I agree, but that's all. That any government, any society, should be obliged to maintain that legal construct for a length of time (even 70 years is more than suits my tastes), seems an unreasonable, and selfish demand. Every time someone compares a copyright to a house, I feel like someone is kicking at the inside of my brain.

A writer should be embarrassed to use such a clumsy analogy. Who builds a house for soul purpose of sharing it with other people, a house that has no value unless it is used by people other than the builder. A house that the builder sells over and over again, but never loses its value. A house that does not decay with age, never needs to be rebuilt or repaired. A house that if built well enough, ends becoming entwined with entire generations, entire cultures. A house which plants the seeds of other houses… perhaps the original builder owns those houses too, or at least, some portion of them.

In other words: NOT A HOUSE AT ALL.

The government isn’t *taking* away anyone’s book, they’re taking away a special protection for something that cannot be easily defined materially. While personal property ownership and rights could certainly exist in absence of a large-scale government, Copyright could not. Copyright can only exist *because* of the government. If the government minded its own business entirely as this delusional old boob seems to want, he’d never have had a damned copyright in the first place.

When I buy a book, the only thing that prevents me from owning the words as well as the paper is law. The right to sell words, and still own them is a legal construct… worthwhile and beneficial to writers, I agree, but that’s all. That any government, any society, should be obliged to maintain that legal construct for a length of time (even 70 years is more than suits my tastes), seems an unreasonable, and selfish demand.

]]>